What an interesting response we have received from people who...

What an interesting response we have received from people who have very little understanding of this industry.
First I want to make the point this is not a pissing contest and I have no intension of getting into one.
I am stating the facts as an institutional investor.
RBA you see it as a good thing diluting the stock to keep the company operating with cash!
That’s fine why go to Fortrend and dilute the stock prices and on top of that give them options until 2011 at 11 cents.
So when the stock is at 50 or 60 cent hypothetically they can buy them at 11 cents.
So if you’re that intelligent why do that when you can do a private placement and lock them up for 12 months.
Ethically it’s wrong to the shareholders who are buying the stock to act in this way.
I have had a look at the Bio’s of the directors; tell me who has had any market expertise from the directors. None of them have, who of any has any funding expertise, again NONE.
While you obviously are pinning your hopes on the Arup report this company needs to demonstrate that it is a one-team operation.
It’s my understanding unless I am missing something that Phillip Capital has all the funding agreements for ESI.
So what does that mean RBA?
That means while ESI has used the Fortrend deal guess who is going to take a slice of the funding?
That’s right Phillip Capital.
So back to the board decision of the Fortrend deal!
Have they got a clue what they are doing, the answer is no as they have given 4 or 5% of what they have raised to Phillip capital for nothing.
Kos is the one who brought Phillip Capital to the table as a funding partner, that’s my understanding.
But as you say there not undermining the CEO or dysfunctional is that right. I agree with you there just plain stupid, and piss farting around with my money.
You might approve of this practise but I don’t, as I am answerable to my investors.
I can assure that I will be asking for the minutes of this meting (MAY) at the AGM.
As a lack of incompetency here is the issue. Not personal

As for Con, he did come to us for funds last year, our evaluation was he had no clue as to what was the objective of the company, it was for that reason we didn’t make a move.
We saw who had the understanding of the technology and the expertise and that’s why we have been active buyers as we got word from the power broker.
That decision wasn’t just by us only as others took the same view and approach.
The company was starved of funds because of his approach to managers and if he is influencing the board, which I don’t put beyond him then, this company is in trouble.
Con has an ego which in companies like ESI there is no place for.
As for the chairman not to be fully aware of the circumstances of the decisions indicates serious lack of judgement in detail that the whole board is accountable for.
This company needs structure and a detailed plan for execution.
Not calling a SOS when signs of troubles come up as has happen with this decision.

The stock should be trading around the 18-22 cents, with the potential of the report being priced in.
There is obviously something fundamentally wrong which we will be asking question to the appropriate people.
Every CEO regardless of circumstances is responsible for the shareholders and their interests as they are payed to steer the company forward, your view that it’s not Con’s fault for the stock dropping 70% is flawed.
I bought the stock personally at 44 as I saw the potential of this technology; I topped up more at 7 cents when I saw a detailed plan by an individual.

I have invested the firm’s funds at 6.5, 7 and 8 as the power broker came to us and discussed an outlined a plan in which this company was to move forward.
This plan was obviously set out by the CEO or else his advisor wouldn’t be running around promoting the company.
I’ve dealt before with the individual and he knows his stuff and what this company need to do.
You’ll find in one of your stocks that you have commented about Kos advisor also assisted the CEO for the beginning.
I hope this answers your questions.
AJANTA
You obviously didn’t read or didn’t understand what I said.
I never said Con called the Fortrend deal but I did say if he did?
The reason the board needs to be attacked is they have just paid 15-20K to Phillip Capital for nothing.

This company need to begin moving forward, not moving 1-step forward 3 steps back.
Its time is now with energy and environmental issue at the forefront and yet it can’t get off first base.
Your other questions are answered above.

Just my 5 cents worth